Saturday, June 24, 2006

Ruth: Imagine that you have information about Haliburton overcharging on their Iraq contracts awarded to them by the government. Imagine your name is Bunny Greenhouse. What do you do? You might think the first thing to do was to tell your surperior in the chain of the command or to carry your complaint to a governmental agency that oversees the issue. That is no longer the case.

On Monday, June 12th's broadcast of WBAI's Law and Disorder, Dalia Hashad, Michael Ratner, Heidi Boghosian and Michael Smith spoke to the Chairman of National Whistleblower Center , Stephen Kohn about the recent Supreme Court verdict in Garcetti v. Ceballos. The decision changed the playing field. Bunny Greenhouse can still go the press but, "under this Supreme Court case," Mr. Kohn noted her internal objections could result in her firing.

"Get rid of the whistle blower before they have the frustration or the audacity to go to the press," Mr. Kohn said explaining the practical implications.

Ms. Hashad noted that the verdict was a "strange decision" that said "you're not protected if you go to your manager and say there's something wrong here, I think we ought to fix it."

The reason for this is because the decision allows them to eliminate a potential whistle blower early on. It was also addressed that the pattern with whistle blowing is that someone does not immediately go to the press (ninety-percent of the time, Mr. Kohn explained, they first attempt to handle the matter internally). Traditionally, what happens is that they attempt to deal with the problem internally, repeatedly. When that does not result in the issue being addressed, they go to the press. So the verdict will allow a form of whistle blower screening for government managers. In addition, by denying the right of internal objection, it could also lead to a person being less likely to speak out since there is no protection for airing your issues internally.Ms. Boghosian raised the issue of retaliation "when an employee goes directly to the press" and Mr. Kohn explained that retaliation was common place and why a national whistle blowers law is needed.

Mr. Ratner pointed out that the press is not that brave in and of itself so though one may hope that the ruling will lead to more people going to the press does not necessarily translate as more whistle blowers getting their stories out. One needs only think of the New York Times failure to explore the case of Sibel Edmonds to see how accurate Mr. Ratner's point is.

"The government is trying to pre-empt all the litgation" with the claim of "state secrets," Mr. Kadidal explained adding that all the government has to do is assert the claim, not prove it or leave it to the judgement of the ruling judge which translates as the administration "telling the courts which cases they can and cannot hear."

The issue of hope was raised by Mr. Ratner with Ms. Hashad offering her thoughts on the ridiculous explanation that "voting" will address this issue of spying. Mr. Kadidal offered his views on some of the proposals in the Senate.

Michael Smith boiled it down beautifully by stating, "This is more of a question of real state policy and I think [. . .], this is one aspect of government from the top down rather than the bottom up."

How does that tie into the war? If whistle blowers have little safety, there is little chance of the government correcting things internally and if objects must be silenced internally, there is little chance of a Daniel Ellsberg growing disgusted with the lack of response and deciding to go public.A Daniel Ellsberg who does go public will, no doubt, need a attorney. If lawyers and their clients cannot speak freely, that is a problem. If everyone has to fear that their conversations are being monitored, a clampdown can set in.

Other segments of last Monday's broadcast were covered in Mike "Law and Disorder on tasers" and Cedric's "WBAI's Law and Disorder covered Mumia Abu-Jamal and David Gilbert." If it is not clear, I am again focusing on the issue of the illegal war. I am not sure if this will be my new format or not. Rebecca's post where she wrote of her grandmother making the point that, unlike in WWII, the press coverage (mainstream) of Iraq was sporadic, has led to the current emphasis for my reports. I remember so much more coverage, and serious coverage, during the Vietnam era. I also happen to believe that we should all listen more to grandparents. I am sure that the fact that I am a grandmother myself has no influence on that belief. Seriously, you can get strong coverage of Iraq currently. You can get it from any number of angles and perspectives. You are not able to get it from the mainstream/corporate media, however. So this is a report of a week's worth of coverage on the illegal war. I am one woman with only two hands and two ears so I am quite sure that I missed a great deal. Here are programs that I caught which explored Iraq from some perspective and that I recommend listening to. If you missed the broadcast, all are archived. Remember as well that there is no fee for listening online, there is no registration process. Pacifica is public radio, it is your radio. If you are able to contribute to it, I think you should; however, you should never feel that if you are unable to make a donation then it is not your radio. It is your radio and it may be the last refuge for real discussions and real reporting in these days of big media.

Tuesday afternoon on KPFA's Against the Grain, rebroadcast an interview Sasha Lilley conducted with author, journalist, film maker and activist Tariq Ali. Mr. Ali spoke of the echoes from Vietnam that resonate with Iraq today. He also spoke of the process by which the resistance to the American intervention in Vietnam "got going." He spoke of various campaigns that began to form in opposition to the war and how, with each demonstration, the numbers would grow. "The first demonstration was 10,000, the second demonstration was 20,000, and the third demonstration was 100,000-plus." He spoke of how the opposition in England prevented then Prime Minister Harold Wilson from sending troops to Vietnam and contrasted that with the current Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and his actions today. Mr. Ali feels, that with the exception of Venezuela, the 21st century is the story of wars and counter-revolutions.

Tuesday evening, Nora Barrows-Friedman interviewed Dahr Jamail on KPFA's Flashpoints. Focusing on Ramadi, Mr. Jamail spoke of how the U.S. snipers and the bombing from U.S. planes has many afraid to leave their homes. He reported that the hospitals biggest complaint is that people are too scared to come in when they need assistance due to the violence. Since the water has been shut off, people are going to the Euphrates River to gather water; however, they cannot boil the water before drinking it because the power has been cut off.

Ms. Barrows-Friedman raised the issue of the use of loudspeakers being used by the military to threaten residents. Mr. Jamail explained that, in violation of the Geeneva Convention, the people were not being advised of safe routes out of the city or provided with any, nor are they provided with supplies. Instead, they are being used to threaten, "Hand over so-called insurgents from your neighborhood or we're going to turn Ramadi into another Falluja," is the threat that has been reported to have been made over the loudspeakers. This is terrorism and a violation of international law as well as the Military Code of Justice.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I wanted to read from an explosive U.S. government document about the situation in Iraq that was recently leaked to the Washington Post. It's an internal memo from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad that describes the situation in the Iraqi capital.This is from a subsection titled, "Women's Rights," and it says, "Two of our three female employees report stepped-up harassment beginning in mid-May. One, a Shia who favors Western clothing was advised by an unknown woman in her Baghdad neighborhood to wear a veil and not to drive her own car. She said some groups are pushing women to cover even their face, a step not taken in Iran, even at its most conservative. Another, a Sunni, said people in her neighborhood are harassing women and telling them to cover up and stop using cell phones. She said the taxi driver who brings her every day to the Green Zone has told her he cannot let her ride unless she wears a head cover. A female in the cultural section" -- this is in the U.S. cultural section -- "is now wearing a full abaya after receiving direct threats."The women say they cannot identify the groups pressuring them. The cautions come from other women, sometimes from men who could be Sunni or Shia, but appear conservative. Some ministries, notably the Sadrist-controlled Ministry of Transportation, have been forcing females to wear the hijab at work."Now, again, that's from an internal memo from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, and at the end of the memo, it's the name of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Khalilzad. Your response. You have gone to Afghanistan repeatedly. In fact, we last spoke to you on a mountain in Afghanistan. But can you talk about this?EVE ENSLER: Well, we have been supporting women -- Yanar Mohammed, we've been supporting, who's running the women's organization in Baghdad. We have been in touch with women now for the last three years, and everything we're hearing about the situation of the women in Baghdad is just -- it is shocking, and it actually really mirrors what happened in Afghanistan. It is the Talibanization of Iraq. And if we look at the fact that sex trafficking has escalated, honor killings have escalated, women's security is abysmal, we are talking about the reversal of women's rights, in terms of Sharia law being reintroduced into the constitution.What most people forget is the status of women in Iraq during Saddam Hussein was actually far better off than many women throughout the region. It has now been completely undermined. And we have this illusion in this country that we have freed women in Afghanistan and freed women in Iraq. Every report we're getting now from Afghanistan is that the situation is terrible and that warlords are everywhere, and the Taliban is completely present.As a matter of fact, Sarah Chayes, who is in Kandahar, who I think you may have had on, recently wrote to me that there is so much activity happening with the Taliban that 74% of the people living in Kandahar actually believe that the U.S. and the Taliban are in cahoots. So we are seeing no real security having happened for women and them being absolutely used to justify this war, used to say we need to go and free the women of Afghanistan, when, in fact, that is not happening.

This is an important subject and, when two guests -- dubbed Prissy and Spoiled Prince -- took to the airwaves to offer another wave of Operation Happy Talk it was noted that they completely avoided the reality of life for women in Iraq under the illegal occupation.

Later on KPFA's The Morning Show, Andrea Lewis and Philip Maldari spoke with independent journalist Dahr Jamail. Mr. Jamail is focusing on what is going on with Ramadi. As with Falluja in April 2004, when the US first attempted to take the city, the military is going neighborhood to neighborhood, the landline phones are out due to air strikes on the telephone companies. Mr. Jamail stated that Ramadi was "twice the size of Falluja geographically with about 100,000 more people who live there." He noted that this action against Ramadi had been an ongoing one over "the last several weeks but it's been ramped up" by "using war planes to conduct strikes within civilian neighborhoods" leading many families to 'hole up' in their homes out of fear.

"They have the city sealed," Mr. Jamail said. "They have had electricity and water cut there and are using snipers very heavily within the city so it's generating another huge refugee outflow from the city, at least 50,000 people, that's the most conservative estimate, and probably more like 200,000 people have left the city, going to Baghdad, Falluja, trying to get into another city. So it is another crisis situation probably along the lines of, similar to the U.S. April 2004 seige against Falluja."

Chris Tensing, of the Middle East Research and Information Project, stated that "the U.S. and other foreign military presence in Iraq is not the cure" for the violence in Iraq and "these kind of attacks will persist as long as there is a foreign military presence in Iraq." He also noted that, of the opposition to the United States, "the largest component is a national resistance fighting for the end of occupation of their country."

Mr. Jamail spoke of how the Iraqi people overwhelming wanted the American troops out. He gave examples such as the "collective punishment" handed out to civilians and the fact that there are still problems with electricity and water as well a lack of jobs.

The impact of Japan's withdrawal will have an impact, Mr. Jamail stated. He used Ramadi as an example of how they were not enough troops to do "what they want" which has led to the neighborhood to neighborhood searches.

AMY GOODMAN: And one other question on the issue of what happened that night: Aren't there Army logs, Army diary, that is kept that night, a record of what happened?GIULIANA SGRENA: Yes. During, of course, all the commands during the -- when there is a patrol, when there is a checkpoint, there is a recording of all what happened during -- all the commands, the communication exchange. And when the -- there was a commission, inquiry commission, made by Americans, and they accepted two Italian inside this commission, but when they asked where are the taping of this communication, they said, "Oh, normally we destroy them, because we can't keep all these recording." But if there is a man killed, it's very strange that the recording of the communication disappeared and there is no sign of this communication, because from that we could know what happened and who was the fail, who was the responsibility.AMY GOODMAN: They say they destroyed the tapes, everything?GIULIANA SGRENA: Yes. Because they say, "after" -- when finished the duty -- "we destroyed."AMY GOODMAN: And yet, this was a massive event, even for the United States. I mean, here was President Bush's -- one of his closest allies, his Prime Minister Blair of England and the prime minister of Italy, Berlusconi. Calipari was very close personally, as well as professionally, to Berlusconi, and Berlusconi for one of the first times was outraged at Bush, and this was immediate that night.GIULIANA SGRENA: Yes.AMY GOODMAN: Yet they say they destroyed the Army logs, the Army diaries of what happened, the record?GIULIANA SGRENA: Yes. And they destroyed -- when the two Italian named by the Italian government to participate in this commission, they arrived in Baghdad. Also, the place where happened the so-called accident, it was cleaned. No bullet there, nothing at all. And they ask why. Normally, you leave all the place of the crime.AMY GOODMAN: A crime scene.GIULIANA SGRENA: They said maybe they can -- all the wheel of the -- all of the -- AMY GOODMAN: Car?GIULIANA SGRENA: Yes, of the car. So it's really -- I don't know. It's something more than hidden the proofs. It’s something that --they think that the Italians, they are stupid, I think.AMY GOODMAN: Where is the car?GIULIANA SGRENA: The car now is in Italy.

Later, on WBAI's First Voices Indigenous Radio, Mattie Harper took an extended look at Native Americans and military service. Ms. Harper noted that they are the "ethnic group with the highest proportion of military enlistment" because "compared to the general population nearly three times as many Native Americans have served in the armed forces as non-Indians during the twentieth century." PTSD (post traumatic stress disorders) are on the rise with the current war in Iraq. A large number of veterans applying for PTSD treatment are Vietnam veterans.Healing

Ms. Harper spoke with Vietnam veteran Larry Stillday who is the outpatient supervisor at the Ponemah Health Center. When Mr. Stillday returned from Vietnam there wasn't a name for the disorder. What was helpful for him, and Ms. Harper noted this was true of many Native Americans, were Native American ceremonies addressing the issues of life and death. For Mr. Stillday, the standard medical treatments addressed only a specific problem and not the root causes. To address the underlying problems, he found help and solace from the elders and the ceremonies.

"When I returned home, home was not the same, at least for me," Mr. Stillday explained. Addressing the alcoholism only was addressing his response to the changes and not the root cause of the changes. He spoke of a woman who came up to him in Vietnam, touched his arm and said "Same, same" which made him connect what was being done in Vietnam with what was done to the Native Americans in this country. He spoke very openly, and bravely, about how the healing was ongoing to this day.

We honor the veterans who returned, we honor the wounds that they came back with and our communities, our tribal communities, honor the wounds and the scars. . . . But we also honor the ones that didn't come back, the fallen ones.

Ms. Harper also interview Gulf War veteran Sean Fahrlander who is a member of the Anishinaabe tribe. Mr. Fahrlander was only diagonsed with PTSD last December and found relief in the diagnosis which explained a number of things to him. Ms. Harper spoke of a Vietnam veteran who, years ago, had sought traditional treatment and the doctors increased his medications when they learned he was making daily offerings because their own cultural barriers and lack of awareness led to that behavior being termed "crazy" instead of being recognized for what it was, a traditional form of his spiritual worship. Mr. Fahrlander spoke of how there is an acceptance of the Judeo-Christian form of spirituality as the norm which leads to a lack of understanding about Native American spirituality. One of the way he addresses his experiences is through poetry and he shared two poems "Days of Faded Glory" and "Questions." I am noting the first one; however, both were powerful. This was spoken and the print version is probably much different.

"Days of Faded Glory"I remember days of faded glory, marching in formation, going nowhere.Somehow my uncle's stories pushed me to stand tall with boys of blue.I never gave one thought to what became of my young friends when the fields were overgrown.How we'd be forgotten, some dead on bloody-bloody sands, some dead but did not pull down.And a few of us who walked away unscathed, left to deal with faded faces.I do not tell my nephews how I marched on fields in formation.I do not want them to know.The sacrifices made on behalf of them by my uncles and meShould be enough to purge any debtAnd I should be able to bury deep in shame the things I have done in their name.Of this I'm sure, some day will comeAnother voice asking them to serve and pay a debtAlready paid by in full by the blood of those who came before.

Thursday afternoon on KPFA's Living Room, Kris Welch interviewed Sherry Glaser who was staging a protest the next day, "Breasts Not Bomb" to protest the war and military recruitment. They discussed the role of public theatre as well as the role of baring breasts. (The latter issue was also addressed on WBAI's Women's Journal Thursday morning.) Ms. Glaser is an activist, actress and playwright. The previous week, a selection from her play Oh My Goddess was played on KPFA's Women's Magazine June 12th.

Friday morning, on Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman interviewed Nadia McCaffrey. Ms. McCaffrey's son Patrick McCaffery died in Iraq in 2004. The military told her that he and Andre Tyson had been killed by "insurgents" when the reality, only confirmed by the U.S. military this week, is that Mr. McCaffery and Mr. Tyson were killed by Iraqi police that they were training. As with the death of NFL athelete Pat Tilman in Afghanistan, someone made the decision that the truth might hurt the 'war effort' and that a lie would be much more useful to selling the war. Ms. McCaffery has fought very hard to get the truth of how her son died. She has fought the administration before and I will note this excerpt from the interview:

AMY GOODMAN: Let's explain the idea that you called the national press to be at Sacramento airport, international airport, when Patrick's body came home, because President Bush had issued this executive order, saying that you shouldn't videotape, photograph, film the flag-draped coffins of the soldiers coming home. But you defied that?NADIA McCAFFREY: Yes, yes. I didn't want to. That was my son. Frankly, I didn’t really care, you know. I needed to do it this way for us, and I wanted to honor my son. I was not going to pass him in the dark, returning home, no. He didn't leave in the dark; why should I do that when he comes back? No.

Friday morning, on KPFA's The Morning Show, Andrea Lewis interviewed UCLA Davis professor Bob Ostertag about his new book People's Movements, People's Press: The Journalism of Social Justice Movements. His book examines the history of the social movement press and covers a number of movements. He shared that he had discovered, "This history is more that people make papers and then the papers make organizations."

A number of movements were addressed but I will zero on his comments regarding the underground G.I. press during the Vietnam era. "This is on nobody's radar," Mr. Ostertag stated. He noted that it was a history that was "unclaimed" even among those who participated.

To combat the myths, manipulations, and revisions on Vietnam, Mr. Ostertag pointed out that, "In 1975 there was a public opinion survey that found that 75% of members of the American military were opposed to the Vietnam war. . . . Soldiers fighting the war were the most anti-war sector of the American population and yet what we've inherited is this image of peace activists spitting on loyal American soldiers which is a myth -- it never happened."

He spoke of how those serving and opposed to the war used a variety of means to express their opposition. Underground publications were published on all bases, naval carriers, etc. They covered many topics such as "how to get out of the army, how to survive in the army, how to survive in the brig" and the people putting out these publications were risking a great deal (such as "years of hard labor at Fort Levenworth and people did").

Friday on FAIR's CounterSpin, Peter Hart addressed the issue of a June 12th New York Times column written by Karen Spears Zacharias in which she falsely maintained that "anti-war protesters" were disrupting military funerals. Mr. Hart did a fine job of noting the problems with the article. Rather than repeat his commentary, which I recommend you listen to, I want to note a few things that were not noted. C.I. makes a point not to comment on specific op-eds and editorials in the New York Times and, in fact, rarely reads them.

Here is the correction the New York Times eventually ran:

An Op-Ed article on Monday, about demonstrations at military funerals, hospitals and memorial services, incorrectly described the protesters at the military funerals discussed in the article. In some cases, the protesters were members of an anti-gay group, not people opposed to the Iraq war; in others, the families of the dead service members were unable to determine the affiliation of the protesters.

In a response to one reader, Zacharias acknowledged that further research revealed that the widows she spoke with were all referring to Phelps' group.

The correction above does not note that. The paper should note that the people she spoke with were referring to Phelp's group. If you are wondering who this Phelps is, it is Fred Phelps, and Rebecca wrote about this group on March 8th. What I would like to point out is who gets printed and who does not. Alice Walker, an author of considerable talent and fame, pens an anti-war column and the paper chooses not to run it. Another woman pens a column that distorts the truth and is riddled with lies about the peace movement and what happens? The paper runs with it. Rebecca knew about the Phelps ' group on March 8th. The paper has no excuse for not knowing of it in June. Did they know they were printing lies? I cannot say. But they knew they were once again airing anti-peace views and the paper is quite happy to do that day after day.

As Elaine has noted, KPFA will be honoring LGBT Pride Day Sunday. Among the programs airing Sunday (times given are Pacific Standard Time):

Sunday SalonSunday, June 25th, 09:00a.m.An LGBT Pride Day Special...Hour 1: Elders in the Queer Community;Hour 2: Coming out after 30

Act One Radio DramaSunday, June 25th, 7:30p.m.Top Girls by Caryl Churchill.A bold comedy from a playwright that critics have called "one of the best writers today." Obie Award Winner!

Sunday on WBAI, they will also honor LGBT and some of their programs include (all times given are Eastern Standard Time):

10:00 am-6:00 pm: LGBT Pride SpecialJoin the Out-FM collective, the Beyond the Pale collective and programmers from sister station WPFW for 4 hours of the LGBT Pride Special, then listen to programmers from KPFA give their views on pride from Berkeley in the remaining 4 hours.

6:30-7:00 pm: Equal Time for FreethoughtBrian Trent on:"Keeping the Darkness at Bay, or How to Avoid Reliving the Lowest Moment in Human History." Just before the dark ages began, there was a moment, when centuries of the total accumulated evidence-based knowledge, as well as the empirical approach to knowing, had people struggling for it not to be eviscerated by the forces of superstition, faith, and authoritarianism.

This weekend we should have two amazing broadcasts to listen. (You can listen online, over the airwaves if there is an Air American Radio station in your area or on XM satellite radio.) The broadcasts start at 7:00 pm EST and end at 10:00 pm EST Saturday and Sunday. The conversations you'll have about the broadcasts will go on for days. So make a point to listen.

Here's Saturday's lineup:

The Rainbow-Push Coalition General Counsel Janice Mathis. She'll be addressing the elections and I'm sure share a few thoughts on Congress' refusal to renew the Voting Rights Act this year. (They can renew it in 2007 but if they were on board, they would have made a point to renew it now.)

The one and only Eve Ensler who encourages us all to use our own voices by example. Violence against women is a global problem -- something Nicholas Kristof hasn't grasped because he's been too busy buying sex-workers and giving shout outs to fundamentalist groups while slamming feminists. For reality, check out this.

William Greider, columnist for The Nation, and author of many books. (My favorite? Who Will Tell The People?) As C.I. has noted before, during Reaganomics, Greider was one of the strongest, most clear headed voices and he's remained so to this day. (Back then, he wrote for Rolling Stone.)

And Grammy winner Lila Downs discussing her new CD La Cantina (Entre Copa y Copa). I called Maria for help with the title. The Tavern (Between Cup and Cup).

Sunday?

The one and only Dahr Jamail. You've got to listen. (Awarded "Embedded in our hearts" in the 2004 year-in-review and only more so today. Listen!)

Need more reasons? Holly Sklar who always has something worth hearing on the economy and, guess what, talk of the economy includes much more than stock tips. Holly keeps it real.

And a name we've grown familiar with at this site, Sharon Smith -- a woman who's not afraid to ask the questions about the illegal war that need to be asked. Subterranean Fire: A History of Working Class Radicalism in the United States is her latest book. I'm adding it to my reading list and you will add it to yours if you remember some of her strong writing that's appeared in/at CounterPunch.

I was fine last weekend, but my power's flickering. (Laura's producer Steve Rosenfeld lost power last weekend.) So I'm doing brief tags and posting. Remember to listen to RadioNation with Laura Flanders.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Eric Lichtblau offer "Cheney Assails Press on Report On Bank Data" in this morning's New York Times. So the administration is caught, once again, spying and their response is, "Don't talk about it!"

Now let's be clear, there's nothing that prevents them from getting the finanical records of anyone -- provided they get a court warrant. Once again, they don't want to do that. And when they've broken the law, again, they want to fall back on, "State secrets! You're hurting the program by even talking about it!"

A lazy press (including the Times which watered down their previous article on this topic that ran in Friday's paper) has allowed us to arrive at this point. But it's also true that a lazy people has as well. Yes, the press bores us with bad reporting (sometimes intentionally bad) and yes, it covers things (jumps on them) that really aren't "news" and shouldn't be treated as such.

But that doesn't excuse the public giving up it's right to know what their government does in an open society. So if, yet again, a significant (though not a majority) number of people look at Bully Boy's latest illegal spying operation and say, "Oh, that's for them to decide," we have no one to blame but ourselves.

This "state secrets" nonsense is a relatively new one and generations of earlier Americans would have probably been more likely to call it out (loudly). What's our excuse?

Amy Goodman noted in another headline that the White House tried to talk the press from covering the story. Since they knew it was breaking, I have to wonder about Alberto Gonzales' dog & pony show today. From all I've been able to read and hear, a terrorist cell that was a threat to America didn't get busted up, they just nabbed The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight.

Yeah, that story's in the paper as well today. Also on the front page. Scott Shane and Andrea Zarate have the dishonors of contributing "F.B.I. Killed Plot In Talking Stage, A Top Aide Says."A top aide says because corporate reporters can't do a damn thing on their own. They need the administration to make sense of what happened because if you think for yourselves, apparently, then the terrorists have won.

Yesterday, on The KPFA Evening News, they addressed this incident. They noted their was a thin line between "thought crime" and actual crime. (And "they" because I had a party last night and was half-listening as I rushed around making sure everything was ready so I'm not remembering the name of the legal commentator.)

This group wasn't a grave threat to America. A sting operation netted a tiny group of nothings and we're all supposed to feel safer that a group that couldn't do anything is now off the streets.We might be better off wondering about the legalities of the sting operation and whether or not it's worth our "freedoms" (Bully Boy necessitates that they be put in quotes these days) for the FBI to even go after this group from Posers Day Camp.

In fact, were I to steal a page from The Book of Cheney, I could easily scream: "This investigation hurts our so-called war on terror!" Why?

The tiny, toothless fish that were swept up in the net outed the fact that the FBI is pursuing leads on terrorists! We've just told the terrorists that the FBI will look into leads! They now know! They are watching our corporate press closley to find out what we are up to and how we will "fight" them! Now they know that we are willing to use the FBI! By addressing the press yesterday, Alberto Gonzales exposed 'state secrets' and the terrorists know them!

Do I believe that? Not anymore than Dick Cheney believes that the press covering the administration's illegal activites hurts America. It does hurt the administration. And it should. When you refuse to follow the laws, you should be hurt by that. When you take an oath to uphold the Constitution but decide instead to trash it, you should be hurt by press disclosures.

There's not a legal genius or great thinker in the rotten bunch, but they apparently think they're overrun with both and that, therefore, they can subvert the Constitution and our system because they just know that much better than anyone else. Oh sure, the Constitution says the people are protected from this or that, but what does that matter when all decisions are made by Bully Boy's gut?

Whether you're happy with the American system (government, legal, et al) or not, you probably look at all these revelations that have come out and wonder about a corporate press that's existed to uphold the system (in all its good and all its bad) which has now spent basically six years taking a pass on defending the system.

Dick Cheney has an energy commission and they meet in secret. That was before 9-11. The press can't hide behind 9-11 as their reason for being so inept and cowardly with regards to that.They've allowed this administration to conduct the people's business in secret for some time now. (Partly because they don't have a great deal of respect for the people or the people's right to know.) As they've laid down on the job (repeatedly), the administration has pressed each time to do something else in secret.

We know Bully Boy's a dry drunk (provided he's still off the booze) and that's really a shame because if he were someone who'd worked a recovery he'd know one core statement: Secrets keeps us sick.

Whatever your opinions of the recovery movement (in any of its forms), a government for and by the people can't operate in secret. And a lazy press serves no one. It doesn't serve the people (which has never been the goal of the New York Times -- serving the people) and it doesn't even act as a society page for a small group of people (which has always been how the paper of no record has seen itself) because even the society pages would tell you if a party went bust. They might not tell you that the reason is your host was confronted by his mistress in front of a group of people and it put a damper on the whole evening, but they wouldn't tell you the party was a hit.

The Times regularly does that now. It tells you everything's fine and even front pages Dick Cheney's idiotic response that doesn't even merit inside the paper coverage. It's not a lapdog press. The Times has always gone out of their way to chronicle "officials." They've rewritten the style manual when certain people might not be well served by the manual (certain people being officials). They've covered up far more than they've ever covered. But the balance (to use their beloved term) is so out of whack today that it's actually inflating their work (or hobby) at this point to call them lapdogs. Evn a lapdog will snap and snarl when under attack. The paper is under attack and they can fool themselves that because they hosted a party for this official or that (an embarrassing party most recently that has many of those attending shaking their heads -- possibly the only sign of hope) means they're "in." They're not "in."

They are under attack (not from press critics -- online or off). That the paper that's upheld the system (in its glory and in its shame -- I was speaking of the system but you can apply that to the paper as well) year after year is now willing to stay silent (and edit out huge portions of Friday's story before it made it into print) is disgusting.

They should be outraged. The people should be outraged. Instead, we'll probably rub our hands in glee that some incompentents in Florida were "captured." The group was far more likely, provided materials were handed to them and put together for them, in blowing themselves up in a non "sucide bomber" related accident. Their "capture" means about as much to our safety as the locals nabbing that homeless panhandler on any downtown street. But here's this useless story about the capture of the Terrorsim Day Camp for Dummies and the adminstration uses it to hide behind yet another revelation of yet another illegal attack on the people and the system.

The headline for this story (and Shane and Zarate aren't responsible for the headline) should have been "No Immediate Threat, A Top Aide Says." The headline for Stolberg and Lichtblau's piece should have been, "Cheney Avoids Answering Questions on Bank Data."

I was in a great mood before I grabbed the paper. One of those mornings that seemed beyond the damage the paper of no record could do. To avoid depressing anyone to the point that I am on a Saturday morning, we'll note Mike's take on the administration's latest illegal spying which will provide some much needed laughter:

Okay, I gotta tell you, I'm now afraid to change my boxers. With all the other spying the Bully Boy's doing, I'm afraid he's also set up web cams in all our homes to make a little porn money on the side. Like half-way around the world, some woman (or some man) is going to be saying, "Oh, si! Su penga is muy grande!" I hear that so much, in so many languages . . . :DSeriously, is there anything he's not spying on? I lost my lab notes Tuesday -- if I write up a FOIA request, can the FBI tell me where they are? I mean, come on, is Bully Boy watching me shower? Is there anything he doesn't spy on? He's like a psycho Santa Clause.

Neighborhood after neighborhood in western Baghdad has fallen to insurgents, with some areas bordering on anarachy. Bodies lie on the streets for hours. Trash is no longer collected. Children are home-schooled.The paralysis that shut down life in western Baghdad is creeping ever closer to the heart of the city and Iraqis in still-livable areas are frantic for the government to halt its advance, something it pledged to do when it started its new security plan for Baghdad last week.

Of course, it's very true that in Ramadi, not covered by the Times, the children are "home-schooled" since the schools are shut down as the seige on Ramadi continues. But we'll note what Tavernise has written because it's in print. It's not said in a bar while she's shooting the __ with other reporters, or tossed out on a speaking tour, or delivered on the NewsHour. It's rare that any sort of reality actually makes it into the paper. So I'll give her (and the paper) for that this morning.

Miguel: Are you following the World Cup? Good evening. Here are ten news headlines from this week's Democracy Now! Peace.

Iraq Declares State of Emergency; More Than 2 Dozen KilledIn Iraq, the government has declared a state of state of emergency following a series of attacks in Baghdad. Earlier today, insurgents set up roadblocks and opened fire on U.S. and Iraqi troops close to the US-run Green Zone. Elsewhere in the Iraqi capital, 10 people were killed and 15 wounded in a bombing of a Sunni mosque. Another 19 deaths were reported around Baghdad. Meanwhile in Basra, at least five people were killed and fifteen wounded when a car bombing struck a market and a nearby gas station.

7 Marines, Naval Corporal Charged With Murdering Iraqi CivilianThe US military has charged eight service members with the murder and kidnapping of an unarmed Iraqi. Hashim Ibrahim Awad was pulled from his home last April in the town of Hamdania. Military investigators believe the Marines shot him and then planted a shovel and an AK-47 rifle at the scene to make it appear he was an insurgent. Awad was in his 50's with a lame leg and bad eyesight. His family has alleged a small group of U.S. servicemembers offered them money in exchange for supporting the Marines' version of the killing. The charges were announced Wednesday at California's Camp Pendleton, where the servicemembers are being held. If convicted, the suspects could face the death penalty.Marine spokesperson Colonel Stewart Navarre: "It is important to note that the charges are accusations, against the individual, and the accused is presumed innocent. All marines are trained in the law of armed conflict, and are expected to fully comply with it. The marine corps takes allegations of wrongdoings by its members very seriously, and is committed to thoroughly investigating such allegations."

US Accused of Killing Iraqi Civilians in BaqubaThe US military is being accused of committing a new massacre of Iraqi civilians. On Tuesday, witnesses, family members and a Sunni parliamentarian said US troops killed a group of civilians near the town of Baquba. An Iraqi human rights worker said two of the dead were young boys aged ten and twelve. In a statement, the US military claimed it killed 15 "terrorists" and had captured their weapons. But an Iraqi police officer told the Washington Post no weapons were found at the scene of the attack.

U.S. Soldiers Charged With Murdering Iraqi DetaineesThree U.S. soldiers have been charged in connection with the killing of three Iraqi detainees last month in the town of Thar Thar Canal. The soldiers -- all members of the 101st Airborne Division -- reportedly detained the Iraqis during a raid on a former chemical factory. Then the soldiers allowed the Iraqis to flee the scene so they would have an excuse to shoot them. The men are also accused of threatening to kill another soldier if he assisted investigators.

Senate Rejects Iraq WithdrawalMeanwhile on Capitol Hill, the Senate rejected two separate measures calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: "None of us know for sure exactly how the democratic reform in Iraq will turn out as we stay committed. But, we do know it will fail if it is abandoned prematurely by the United States. Withdrawal is not an option. Surrender is not a solution."Both measures were proposed by Democrats. A proposal calling for a withdrawal without a firm deadline was defeated 60 to 39. Another measure calling for a troop withdrawal by July of next year was defeated by an even wider margin -- 89 to 13. The measure was introduced by Massachusets Senator John Kerry. Speaking on the Senate floor, Kerry argued that a firm timetable is necessary.Senator John Kerry: "Why on earth would senators come to the floor and argue 'Let's just stay the course and do the same old thing' when our own generals have told us the same old thing is part of the part of the problem? The same old thing is attracting terrorists. The same old thing is losing us allies. The same old thing is costing us unbelievable sums of money and lives unnecessarily."

Japan To Withdraw Troops From IraqThe so-called coalition of the willing in Iraq is continuing to shrink. The Japanese prime minister has announced plans to pull its six hundred troops out of Iraq within weeks. Italy has already said it will remove its troops by year’s end. Spain, The Netherlands, Ukraine, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Honduras have already pulled out. Once the Italian troops leave, Britain and South Korea will be the only nations besides the United States to have more than one thousand troops in Iraq.

Secret Bush Admin Program Monitors International Bank RecordsThe Bush administration has been secretly monitoring thousands of international bank transactions without court-approval. The secret program was enacted shortly after the 9/11 attacks in what government officials say is a crucial weapon in tracking the financing of terrorist activity. The information has been obtained from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT. The organization helps direct trillions of dollars in daily international bank transfers. Officials told the Los Angeles Times the program has been “marginally successful” in tracking the financial activity of al Qaeda. SWIFT executives apparently tried to withdraw from the program after becoming concerned over its legality. The executives were persuaded to continue their cooperation only after the intervention of top government officials, including former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan.

AT&T's New Privacy Policy Says It Owns Costumers' InfoIn privacy news, AT&T has introduced a new policy that says the company owns customers' account information and can share it with government agencies. Under the new policy, AT&T will collect customers' user names, passwords, charges, payments, and online purchases. It will also track their activity while on sites that AT&T operates in a partnership with Yahoo. The changes come as AT&T is embroiled in a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation over the company’s involvement in the NSA spy program.

Thousands Protest Bush in AustriaIn Austria, at least 15,000 people gathered in Vienna Wednesday to protest the visit of President Bush. The President is in Austria for talks with European Union leaders. A group of protesters wore orange jump suits similar to those worn by detainees at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay. European leaders have used the meeting to call for Guantanamo’s closure.Unidentified protester: "We don't like Bush. We don't accept Bush, Bush is just a killer, a murdere, he doesn't make policy, he is just killing people for his interests, for economic interests, it's mainly for oil, everybody knows it."

Senate Rejects Minimum Wage IncreaseBack in the United States, the Senate rejected a measure Wednesday that would have raised the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade. The proposal called for a 40 percent increase from the current wage of Five Dollars and Fifteen cents an hour. A study released this week by the Economic Policy Institute and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says the real-dollar value of the minimum wage is now at its lowest level in more than fifty years. But Congress has not rejected all federal pay hikes: last week, House lawmakers voted to increase their salaries by more than Three Thousand Dollars. It was their seventh straight pay raise.

Secret Bush Admin Program Monitors International Bank RecordsThe Bush administration has been secretly monitoring thousands of international bank transactions without court-approval. The secret program was enacted shortly after the 9/11 attacks in what government officials say is a crucial weapon in tracking the financing of terrorist activity. The information has been obtained from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT. The organization helps direct trillions of dollars in daily international bank transfers. Officials told the Los Angeles Times the program has been "marginally successful" in tracking the financial activity of al Qaeda. SWIFT executives apparently tried to withdraw from the program after becoming concerned over its legality. The executives were persuaded to continue their cooperation only after the intervention of top government officials, including former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan.Papers Detail Bank Program Over White House ObjectionMajor stories on the bank-monitoring program appeared in today's editions of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal. Both the New York Times and Los Angeles Times say the Bush administration lobbied them to withhold publication on the grounds public disclosure would harm national security.Senate Rejects Iraq WithdrawalMeanwhile on Capitol Hill, the Senate rejected two separate measures calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: "None of us know for sure exactly how the democratic reform in Iraq will turn out as we stay committed. But, we do know it will fail if it is abandoned prematurely by the United States. Withdrawal is not an option. Surrender is not a solution."

Both measures were proposed by Democrats. A proposal calling for a withdrawal without a firm deadline was defeated 60 to 39. Another measure calling for a troop withdrawal by July of next year was defeated by an even wider margin -- 89 to 13. The measure was introduced by Massachusets Senator John Kerry. Speaking on the Senate floor, Kerry argued that a firm timetable is necessary.

Senator John Kerry: "Why on earth would senators come to the floor and argue 'Let's just stay the course and do the same old thing' when our own generals have told us the same old thing is part of the part of the problem? The same old thing is attracting terrorists. The same old thing is losing us allies. The same old thing is costing us unbelievable sums of money and lives unnecessarily."

AT&T's New Privacy Policy Says It Owns Costumers' InfoIn privacy news, AT&T has introduced a new policy that says the company owns customers' account information and can share it with government agencies. Under the new policy, AT&T will collect customers' user names, passwords, charges, payments, and online purchases. It will also track their activity while on sites that AT&T operates in a partnership with Yahoo. The changes come as AT&T is embroiled in a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation over the company's involvement in the NSA spy program.

Two years after National Guardsmen Spc. Patrick McCaffrey and 1st Lt. Andre Tyson were killed in Iraq, the truth about their deaths has been exposed. Military officials initially told the families that the two men had been killed in an ambush by insurgents but an Army investigation concluded that they were in fact murdered by members of the allied Iraqi Civil Defense Corps. The military only told the families the truth this week. We speak with Nadia McCaffrey -- the mother of Spc. Patrick McCaffrey -- who is accusing the Pentagon of a deliberate cover-up.Excerpt:AMY GOODMAN: But no member of his unit came to you and said, "It's not as the Army has told you. I was there."NADIA McCAFFREY: Yes. Yes, two or three people did.AMY GOODMAN: And did they tell you this?NADIA McCAFFREY: They told me, yes, what they saw and what they have heard. As a matter of fact, just after Patrick and Andre were killed, one of the soldiers made his own report. And very complete, I may say. And this report was actually sent to the Sacramento Bee in Sacramento, newspaper. And this article was actually published by the Sacramento Bee. Immediately after that, this article was all over the world, because when Patrick's body returned to the airport in San Francisco, I called the media, and that made a huge fire within the news and so on, since the Pentagon had a ban on that.AMY GOODMAN: Let's explain the idea that you called the national press to be at Sacramento airport, international airport, when Patrick's body came home, because President Bush had issued this executive order, saying that you shouldn't videotape, photograph, film the flag-draped coffins of the soldiers coming home. But you defied that?NADIA McCAFFREY: Yes, yes. I didn't want to. That was my son. Frankly, I didn’t really care, you know. I needed to do it this way for us, and I wanted to honor my son. I was not going to pass him in the dark, returning home, no. He didn't leave in the dark; why should I do that when he comes back? No. But because of that, immediately after this, this article took off and was everywhere. What happened was, the soldier who wrote this article was threatened to be court-martialed immediately. And the only reason that the court-martial didn't happen is because it became too public too fast. But he nonetheless was in serious trouble. I know that through his mother, and she was extremely worried about it. So I talked to other soldiers in his unit, and I called, you know, [inaudible] in San Francisco that I know. I needed advice from just in case something would turn ugly. He's okay. But it was not easy for him for quite a long time.

The state of Tennessee has announced that five death row prisoners are scheduled to be executed this Wednesday, June 28th. Tennessee has carried out only one execution since 1960. We speak with the executive director of the Tennessee Coalition to Abolish State Killing.

We take a look at case of death row case prisoner, Mumia Abu Jamal. with Julia Wright, daughter of the late, famed writer Richard Wright. We also play a tribute to Julia Wright that Mumia Abu Jamal recorded from death row.

Iraq snapshot.

Chaos and violence continue.

The ten day old "crackdown" in Baghdad, which has had little measurable impact on stopping violence, sprouted a new development today: "State of emergency." As Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted this morning, "Earlier today, insurgents set up roadblocks and opened fire on U.S. and Iraqi troops close to the US-run Green Zone." The Associated Press reports this was done as fighting forces seemed intent on breaching "the heavily fortified Green Zone." As Sandra Lupien noted on KPFA's The Morning Show, amidst the violence, US troops "rushed to the area." Current prime minister Nouri al-Maliki has "ordered everyone off the streets" of Baghdad, provided "broader arrest powers" and placed "a ban on carrying weapons."

Sam Knight (Times of London) reports that "the 5 million inhabitants of the Iraqi capital [were] given just two hours notice of a curfew" (started at 2:00 pm in Baghdad, as Knight notes, but it was set to end at 5:00 pm and not, as Knight reports, on Saturday -- since Knight filed, al-Maliki shortened the curfew). Knight notes the paper's Baghdad correspondent Ned Parker terming the "extended gun battle . . . just north of the fortified Green Zone" a "free-for-all." Along with gunfire and mortars, Reuters reports that two US troops died today "when their vehicle struck a roadside bomb southeast of Baghdad."

In Hibhib, the Associated Press notes the bombing of a Sunni mosque resulted in at least ten dead and fifteen wounded. Reuters notes two police officers shot to death in Hilla. The AFP reports that five corpses were found in Mishada.

Elsewhere, Australia's ABC reports that the Australian government "is playing down reports" of a threat to future trade arrangments with Iraq as a result of Australian troops shooting bodyguards of Abdel Falah al-Sudany (Iraqi Trade Minister) -- one died "at least three others [were] injured." Despite John Howard (prime minister of Australia) continuing to downplay the issue (he won't apologize at present), ABC notes "reports [that] the Iraqi Trade Minister is threatening to ditch all trade deals".

The AFP reports that the United States Senate "unanimously approved a $707 billion defence bill for the next financial year that includes almost $70 billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

In news of future wars, Col. Dan Smith reports, for CounterPunch, on a little known development from June 20, 2006. As the 2007 Defense Department Appropriations bill was being addressed, Representative Maurice Hinchey attempted to attach the following amendment: "None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to initiate military operations against Iran except in accordance with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States." Though the amendment was only underscoring the true powers of the U.S. Congress, it failed on a 215/47 vote. Unlike Michael R. Gordon, war pornographer and his "Iran Aiding Shiite Attacks Inside Iraq, General Says" (New York Times), the AFP notes of George W. Casey's allegations against Iran: "The White House and Pentagon have repeatedly accused elements in Tehran of arming Iraqi insurgent groups. But they concede they have no clear proof that the Iranian government is sponsoring the activities."

Bonus post because Eli wanted an article noted and Erika felt we needed to note taxi driver Kate Zernike again. (This is a dictated entry by the way.)

First up, Michael R. Gordon, war pornographer. A8 has his "Iran Aiding Shiite Attacks Inside Iraq, General Says." No, it's not Tommy Franks that Gordon hides behind, it's George W. Casey, Jr. Wally's 'THIS JUST IN! PSYCHIC CASEY SAYS "HONEY, THEY SHRUNK THE ARMY!"' juxtaposed Casey's laughable remarks yesterday against his public remarks in January (Wally's references the Democracy Now! coverage from January). Casey's made himself laughable (saying in January that the troops were stretched and now making noises that troops may start coming home in some numbers). It's nonsense. Anyone following the recruiting numbers knows that. But the Senate postured and it's part of the marketing plan for Republicans in the upcoming elections. (Which is why Rummy was making sure the points were 'on message' prior to the conference.) As for Iran, they're physically closer to Iraq than is the United States. Gordon doesn't have anything to do with his time but cup the crotches of general and ask, "How does that feel?"

Dispensing with the war pornographer. Erika wanted Kate Zernike's "Senate Rejects Calls to Begin Iraq Pullback." (Front page.) Zernike may be on duty but no matter what the anyone says, her cab's not "OCCUPIED." Which explains why she turns out more of the shameful "reporting" that's been her hallmark all week long. Erika feels that Zernike's accepted the "Republican talking points" and wanted that noted. I'll note that she needs to GET HER FACTS RIGHT. It's hard being a water carrier for your bosses who want the war to go on and on, but there's no excuse for not knowing the vote makeup in the Senate when that's what you're reporting on.

How is she wrong? She talks of Democrats, she talks of Republicans. The Senate has one designated Independent, Jim Jeffords. How did he vote? Zernike can't tell you because she appears unaware that he exists. When you're writing of the 60 to 39 vote and noting Republicans and Democrats, it takes but a second to note how Jeffords voted. (Jeffords voted in favor of the Levin nonbinding proposal.) On the 86 to 13 vote for the Kerry-Feingold proposal (troops out by July 2007), Zernike notes it and writes it had "no Republican supporters." Again, Jeffords (Independent) voted in favor of it. There's one Independent in the Senate (not the "Straight Talker") and it should have been noted. Is she slanting by not noting it? Make up your own mind. But she's not reporting what happened. When she's offering statements like "No Republicans crossed lines to vote with the Kerry-Feingold proosal," it's incumbent upon her to note Jeffords. However he votes, it's incumbent on her to voting when that's what she's reporting (even when it doesn't fit in with her pre-planned/assigned narrative). Bring it back into the garage, Zernike, you've pleased your bosses enough to take a little break.

* Nadia McCaffrey on how the Pentagon lied to her about how her son, Army Spc. Patrick R. McCaffrey Sr., died in Iraq.* Julia Wright on the case of Mumia Abu Jamal* Nativo Lopez on the immigrants rights movement

Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials.[. . .]The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.That access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues."The capability here is awesome or, depending on where you're sitting, troubling," said one former senior counterterrorism official who considers the program valuable. While tight controls are in place, the official added, "the potential for abuse is enormous."

The above is from Eric Licthblau and James Risen's "Bank Data Sifted in Secret by U.S. to Block Terror" in this morning's New York Times. If the article seems a little toothless (it is, note who they go to and who they don't go to), it's already leading to grandstanding from the administration. Martha notes Barton Gellman, Paul Blustein and Dafna Linzer's "Bank Records Secretly Tapped" (Washington Post):

The White House complained last night that the disclosure could hurt anti-terrorism activities."We are disappointed that once again the New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is working to protect Americans," spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We know that al-Qaeda watches for any clue as to how we are fighting the war on terrorism and then they adapt, which increases the challenge to our intelligence and law enforcement officials."

Sometimes, after the passions of war have cooled a bit, you've sounded briefly self-reproachful about journalistic excesses of zeal for the U.S. war effort. That was the case eight months after Sept. 11 when you told BBC Television on May 16, 2002, that fear of being labeled unpatriotic had caused American journalists to engage in "a form of self-censorship." And, to your credit, you added that "I do not except myself from this criticism."But less than a year later, in April 2003, you went on CNN's "Larry King Live" and proclaimed: "Look, I'm an American. I never tried to kid anybody that I'm some internationalist or something. And when my country is at war, I want my country to win, whatever the definition of 'win' may be. Now, I can't and don't argue that that is coverage without a prejudice. About that I am prejudiced."Well, Mr. Rather, I realize that no career can be summed up with just a few examples. Occasionally you were willing to go out on a limb to function as an independent-minded journalist and confront top U.S. government officials. More often, you were extreme in your fawning treatment of the powerful.But most of all, you succumbed to the pattern that you aptly described back in a 1989 interview, pointing out that you--like so many other journalists--kept going back to "a shockingly small ... circle of experts [who] ... get called upon time after time after time."While you’re leaving broadcast news, that kind of over-reliance on official sources and conventional wisdom seems to be more entrenched than ever.

Dan Rather, the creepiest of the creepies, the nuttiest of the nuttys. If you missed it, we didn't note it here because I was trying to find out where it was coming from, Rather (who has led some on the left to blather) has been said in some reports to have not seen the Mary Mapes produced segment until it was aired. Where is that twist in the storyline coming from? From Dan Rather. It was obvious from the reporting (AP had a lengthy article that mentioned it as an aside) but I wanted to hear it from someone at CBS so I called a friend to get him to track it down. Rather has put out that he didn't see the report until it aired. He's once again trying to save his own ass but behind the scenes so he can still maintain that he stood with Mapes. He's a sicko, he's always been a sicko. He's making crowd pleasing remarks now and the only reason for that is because, when he started it, he thought it would force CBS to keep him on. Now you've got blathering online like "We're with you, Dan" and "Welcome to the new media, glad to have you" and other nonsense. Dan Rather is in it for Dan Rather and always has been. He's in it to make Dan Rather "liked." Not admired for his news coverage, liked. That's always been his most serious journalistic crime. And since likeable changes from one minute to the next, he's had a public image that's veered to every extreme. He has not, however, had a career offering anything to be proud of. (Ava and I noted our feelings of Rather, briefly, in "Katie Was a Cheerleader.")

Danny Schechter gets a joke in (with a point) in "Dan Rather, RIP, Assassinated by the Media Company He Loved" (Common Dreams) but I'm wondering if anyone got it? The reason I wonder is because there are three e-mails on the article and all wondering about this sentence:"Next to go was Murrow's partner/producer Fred Friendly who became News President only to resign when the network refused to pre-empt an 'I Love Lucy' entertainment show and cover a crucial Senate Hearing on the Vietnam War." The question is bascially did the Senate hold hearings in the fifties? No, but just as ABC aired That Girl repeats as part of their daytime schedule in the sixties, CBS aired I Love Lucy as part of their daytime schedule -- the difference is CBS waited until the show had ended production of new episodes. These were repeats of the fifties sitcom classic. (If that's cleared up any confusion, go back and read the article to enjoy Danny's joke.)

* Nadia McCaffrey on how the Pentagon lied to her about how her son, Army Spc. Patrick R. McCaffrey Sr., died in Iraq.* Julia Wright on the case of Mumia Abu Jamal* Nativo Lopez on the immigrants rights movement

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.